For me, starting in 2001 it never did pass. One continuing reorganization and restructuring after another, ongoing, for the next 15 years (and beyond, it appears). "This is not a headcount reduction exercise" and then ZAP 75% of the department gone was a most unforgettable one. At least at my previous employer's leadership was honest about the impacts that market and technology changes would have on the workforce while offering career transition training benefits and without resorting to "at will" employment language when the workforce was impacted and the "employer/employee of choice" compact was broken. It was some rough sledding at USAA for several years that was worth it in the end but the employment insecurity took its toll on my attitude.
5 replies (most recent on top)
How many times have we had to select reputation risk to USAA because of some unethical practice?
Do we not care about our reputation risk now that executives are reneging work location?
Yeah, pass like a kidney stone.
Yeah, I feel like it will. But it sure sucks in the meantime. We're hemorrhaging irreplaceable tenured knowledge, which means we'll repeat work at a higher rate... putting us further and further behind the competitive curve. Our "modernization" feels more antiquated than the ancient technology we're replacing. The more tenure we eliminate, the more catching up we'll have to do.
We are a sinking ship. Just waiting for us to have our version of a December 2022 Southwest meltdown. 🔥🍿
yea but at what cost? How could any self respecting person want to work for a company that goes back on agreed upon arrangements on hire and lays off thousands based on the bad decisions made by senior leadership?